Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, United Kingdom.
J Surg Educ. 2010 Mar-Apr;67(2):85-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.01.004.
Recent changes to postgraduate training in the United Kingdom have led to considerable debate regarding selection processes for specialist training (ST) positions. A survey of the opinion of a group of consultants on the relative importance of selection criteria for entry into the first year of specialist training (ST 1) was conducted.
An electronic questionnaire was sent to the e-mail addresses of all consultants at 4 hospitals in London with a request to rank order the importance of specific selection criteria when assessing (1) a candidate's suitability for entry into ST 1, (2) the fairest shortlisting mechanism, and (3) whether an interview should be a necessity for appointment.
Of 657 consultants successfully contacted, 212 (32%) replied. Previous specialty-specific experience gained during foundation (intern-level) training was considered the most important criteria in assessing suitability for entry into ST 1 with additional research degrees second most important. A conventional curriculum vitae (CV) was considered the fairest way of shortlisting candidates, whereas a nationalized final undergraduate examination (Final MB) was least favored. Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that an interview was essential for appointment to ST 1.
Consultants place the most emphasis on previous specialty-specific experience and additional research degrees when considering selection for ST 1, bringing into question the generic nature of foundation training. Consultants preferred to maintain some subjective controls over purely objective markers in the selection process. Thus, there is little support for a nationalized ranked examination as a shortlisting tool, and an interview is recognized as essential for appointment to ST 1. There is a need to build on these preliminary findings by conducting further investigations before changes to selection methodology are implemented.
最近，英国的研究生培训发生了变化，导致针对专科培训（ST）职位的选拔过程产生了大量的争论。我们对一组顾问对进入专科培训第一年（ST1）的选择标准的相对重要性的意见进行了调查。
我们向伦敦 4 家医院的所有顾问的电子邮件地址发送了一份电子问卷，要求他们对以下内容进行排序：（1）评估候选人是否适合进入 ST1，（2）最公平的筛选机制，以及（3）是否需要面试作为任命的必要条件，对特定选拔标准的重要性进行排序。
在成功联系的 657 名顾问中，有 212 名（32%）做出了回应。在评估进入 ST1 的适合性时，基础（实习级）培训期间获得的先前特定专业经验被认为是最重要的标准，而额外的研究学位则是第二重要的标准。传统的简历（CV）被认为是筛选候选人的最公平方式，而国家化的最终本科考试（最终 MB）则最不受欢迎。95%的受访者认为面试对于任命 ST1 至关重要。
顾问在考虑 ST1 的选择时最强调先前特定专业经验和额外的研究学位，这对基础培训的一般性提出了质疑。顾问更喜欢在选拔过程中保留一些对纯粹客观标记的主观控制。因此，几乎没有支持将国家化的分级考试作为筛选工具的意见，并且面试被认为是任命 ST1 的必要条件。在实施选拔方法的变更之前，需要根据这些初步发现进行进一步的调查。
